Objectives/Hypothesis: Otolaryngology instructional videos available online are often of poor quality. The objective of this article was to establish international consensus recommendations for the production of educational surgical videos in otolaryngology.Study Design: DELPHI survey.Methods: Twenty‐seven international respondents participated in this study from 12 countries. Consensus was reached after three rounds of questionnaires following the Delphi methodology. The proposals having reached the 80% agreement threshold in the third round were retained.Results: The main recommendations are as follows: 1) Ethics: patients must be anonymized and unrecognizable (apart from plastic surgery if necessary). A signed authorization must be obtained if the person is recognizable. 2) Technical aspects: videos should be edited and in high‐definition (HD) quality if possible. Narration or subtitles and didactic illustrations are recommended. 3) Case presentation: name of pathology and procedure must be specified; the case should be presented with relevant workup. 4) Surgery: surgical procedures should be divided into several distinct stages and include tips and pitfalls. Pathology should be shown if relevant. Key points should be detailed at the end of the procedure. 5) Organ‐specific: type of approach and bilateral audiometry should be specified in otology. Coronal plane computed tomography scans should be shown in endonasal surgery. It is recommended to show pre‐ and postoperative videos in voice surgery and preoperative drawings and photos of scars in plastic surgery, as well as the ventilation method in airway surgery.Conclusions: International recommendations have been determined to assist in the creation and standardization of educational surgical videos in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery.Level of Evidence: 5 Laryngoscope, 131:E732–E737, 2021

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intraoperative conebeam CT has been introduced into the operating room and provides quick radiologic feedback. This study aimed to investigate its utility in the assessment of the positioning of the electrode array after cochlear implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 51 patients (65 ears) with intraoperative imaging by conebeam CT (O-arm) after cochlear implantation between 2013 and 2017. Correct placement into the cochlea was immediately identified. Positioning assessments were later analyzed with OsiriX software. RESULTS: Intraoperative imaging was quickly performed in all cases. No misplacement into the vestibule or semicircular canals was found. A foldover of the implanted array was identified in 1 patient. Secondary analysis by 2 raters showed excellent agreement on insertion depth angle (intraclass correlation = 0.96, P < .001) and length of insertion of the electrode array (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93, P = .04) measurements. The evaluation of the number of extracochlear electrodes was identical between the 2 raters in 78% of cases (Cohen κ = 0.55, P < .001). The scalar position was inconsistent between raters. When we compared O-arm and high-resolution CT images in 14 cases, the agreement was excellent for insertion depth angle (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97, P < .001) and insertion length (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98, P < .001), good for the number of extracochlear electrodes (Cohen κ = 0.63, P = .01), but moderate for the scalar position (Cohen κ = 0.59, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative conebeam CT using the O-arm is a safe, rapid, easy, and reliable procedure to immediately identify a misplacement or foldover of an electrode array. The insertion depth angle, insertion length, and number of electrodes inserted can be accurately assessed.

Objectives. This study was conducted to investigate the current practices of Asian otolaryngologists for laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).Methods. An online survey about LPR was sent to 2,000 members of Asian otolaryngological societies, and a subgroup analysis was performed between Western and Eastern Asian otolaryngologists. The survey was conducted by the Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Study Group of Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies.Results. Among approximately 1,600 Asian otolaryngologists, 146 completed the survey (62 from Western Asian countries, 84 from Eastern Asian countries). A substantial majority (73.3%) of the otolaryngologists considered LPR and gastroesophageal reflux disease to be different diseases. The symptoms thought to be closely related to LPR were coughing after lying down, throat clearing, and globus sensation. The findings thought to be closely related to LPR were posterior commissure granulations and hypertrophy, arytenoids, and laryngeal erythema. The respondents indicated that they mostly diagnosed LPR (70%) after an empirical therapeutic trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Although multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring is a useful tool for diagnosing nonacid or mixed LPR, 78% of Asian otolaryngologists never or very rarely used MII-pH. Eastern Asian otolaryngologists more frequently used once-daily PPIs (64.3% vs. 45.2%, P=0.021), whereas Western Asian otolaryngologists preferred to use twice-daily PPIs (58.1% vs. 39.3%, P=0.025). The poor dietary habits of patients were considered to be the main reason for therapeutic failure by Asian otolaryngologists (53.8%). Only 48.6% of Asian otolaryngologists considered themselves to be adequately knowledgeable and skilled regarding LPR.Conclusion. Significant differences exist between Western and Eastern Asian otolaryngologists in the diagnosis and treatment of LPR. Future consensus statements are needed to establish diagnostic criteria and therapeutic regimens.

Objective: To describe a new method to measure the cochlear parameters using Otoplan software, and to compare it with the traditional method using curved multiplanar reconstruction (cMPR). Study Design: Retrospective analysis using internal consistency reliability and paired sample t test. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Patients: Thirty-four patients including 68 ears from a clinical trial were retrospectively reviewed. Main Outcome Measures: The length, width, height (distances A, B, H), and cochlear duct length of each cochlea were measured independently using two modalities: Otoplan and cMPR. Internal consistency reliability of the two modalities was analyzed. The time spent on each measurement was also recorded. Results: Otoplan software was compatible with all radiological data in this series. Distances A, B, and H showed no significant differences between Otoplan (9.33 ± 0.365, 6.61 ± 0.359, and 2.91 ± 0.312 mm) and cMPR (9.32 ± 0.314, 6.59 ± 0.342, and 2.93 ± 0.250 mm). The average cochlear duct length calculated by Otoplan was 34.37 ± 1.481 mm, which was not significantly different from that calculated by cMPR (34.55 ± 1.903mm, p = 0.215). The measurements with Otoplan had better internal consistency reliability compared with those by cMPR, and measurements with a higher peak kilovoltage (140 kVp) CT scan showed further higher internal consistency reliability. Time spent on each cochlea by Otoplan was 5.9 ± 0.69 min, significantly shorter than that by cMPR (9.3 ± 0.72 min). Conclusion: Otoplan provides more rapid and reliable measurement of the cochlea than cMPR. Furthermore, it can be easily used in the laptop computer.